The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions

And how would that be ?

Any one of a million ways.

Lack of any meaningful answer or even any attempt to answer noted.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can assure yu if e.g. the USA developed a safe fusion generator the
size of a bicycle and gave the technology to the world, the Chines would
take it up faster than you can say 'chow mein'

I dare say they would but it's not going to happen is it. Science is a bitch like
that !

So how about some meaningful statements ?

Graham

Tony Bryer wrote:

On 17 Oct 2007 09:20:44 GMT Huge wrote :
I couldn't disagree more. My money is best spent by me on things I
want, and worst spent by some politician who's barely aware which
way is up. Look at all the nonsense about CFLs, for example. (And
the lead-free solder one, up this thread a way). Or worse still,
domestic windmills, which are obviously a waste of money.

But the last is nothing to do with politicians

No ? How about Cameron's windmill and the desire for adulation he seeks from its
worthless existence ?

Even big wind turbines are a poor return on investment in most places.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

And the next cracking joke is this one !

As the demand for green 'carbon neutral' bio-fuel increases, palm oil production
in Asia is being increased. To do this they BURN OFF more of their rainforest !
Carbon-neutral my ass !

So, a green political whim in Europe results in wholesale rainforest
destruction. BRILLIANT !

Yup.

Governementst should refrain from working out how to save energy:

It had nothing to do with Government.

It's the 'green movement' with its promotion of bio-fuels that's resulted in high
demand from the public 'to appear green' that can't be met from indigenous supply
which is in turn destroying rainforests.

Oh, the irony !

Graham

On 17 Oct 2007 09:20:44 GMT Huge wrote :
I couldn't disagree more. My money is best spent by me on things I
want, and worst spent by some politician who's barely aware which
way is up. Look at all the nonsense about CFLs, for example. (And
the lead-free solder one, up this thread a way). Or worse still,
domestic windmills, which are obviously a waste of money.

But the last is nothing to do with politicians - rather a result of
leaving it to the market. They're about to be added to SAP2005 - I
haven't yet worked through the numbers but would expect them to
confirm what everyone except David Cameron knows.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If the tax on home fuel and gas and on industrial fuel was te same as
that on road fuel, no one would accept a house that was anything else
than insulated to the sort of standard you might see in central Canada.

Taking government spending in toto, that's no different to offering free home
insulation upgrades. The money simply gets there by a slightly different route.

Taxes, subsidies, thay all amount to the same thing in the end.

Graham

On Oct 14, 9:37 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote

What struck me in particular was this paragraph:

"But the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows
that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would
cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and
would take about 208 years to pay back."

Ours cost us £2000 two years ago. Our gas bills (the only other
water heating we had) were reduced by almost £300 in the first year.

... I'm sure even the most sceptical person in this group can
see all of the figures are utter nonsense. But what to do about an
ignorant public?

Par for the course. Even the Nobel comittee were ignorant enough to get taken in
by Al Gore's comedy film.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, the top climate scientists are all wrong, the Un is wrong, Al Gore
is wrong, but you are right? I don`t think so.
Those who believe the anti Gore propaganda are dupes of big business-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate
change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish
quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to
attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.
Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in
schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent
school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was
'brainwashing' pupils

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would
have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was
welcomed by climate-change sceptics.

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a
powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel
and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor
in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the
test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure
Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for
lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has
received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 -
from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is
a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former
private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a
not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which
aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling
and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised
Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial
documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge
claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall
Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate
change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated
political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive
misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward
continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,'
Livermore said.

In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates
Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock
extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls
to the association requesting an interview were not returned last
week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his
personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to
try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out
our schools, hospitals and roads.'

He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that
the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth
crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against
drunk drivers'.

Dimmock also received support from a new organisation,
Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the
classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment
system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set
up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month
to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.

Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher
in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is
backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they
want to be revealed,' he said.

He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the
government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change
debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into
believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by
other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest,
especially from people in the US.'

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim wrote:

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g.
actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy
more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like
that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free..

We don;t need legislation, we need taxation.

If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in
the car to do it.

Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price.

As I have said elsewhere, whether you achieve this by a tax or a subsidy, overall in
the total scheme of things, it makes little difference. They're just names for
redirecting the flow of money. Some names may be more palatable than others.

Graham

Sundug wrote:

So, the top climate scientists are all wrong,

No, actually some top climate scientists think AGW is bull.


the Un is wrong,

It normally is. No surprise there. The UN has a consistent track record of *uck-ups.


Al Gore is wrong,

Al Gore's not a scientist last time I checked but merely a worthless scheming
POLITICIAN. Are you seriously saying he should be believed about AGW when he rejects
the idea of a small 'carbon footprint' for himself ? It's a case of "do what I say"
with Gore, not "do what I do".


but you are right? I don`t think so.

But you're a gullible IDIOT.

Graham

Sundug wrote:

Those who believe the anti Gore propaganda are dupes of big business-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

And you'd believe what the Guardian says ? Have you seen the disarray their precious
Liberal Party is in ?

Bwahahahahahahaaa !

Graham

Sundug wrote:

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate
change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish
quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to
attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Rubbish. It was backed by the New Party.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/

Long overdue. Democracy together with responsible and accountable politics is nearly
dead in the UK at this time. We currently merely have a few tired old nags dragging
out their death throes.

Graham

Sundug wrote:

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the
test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure
Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for
lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

What's wrong with either of those ?

Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of CO2
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be available for
more than a few hours a day.

Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been quietly
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs for
decades. And inexpensively too btw.

The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the need to
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by half'
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.

Graham

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?
Thanks,
Jim


Houses built until fairly recently in Britain have only had an air gap
between the inner and outer walls of a house. That helped with insulation
and preventing damp. It was better than earlier buildings which were
single walled.

Newly built houses have built-in blocks (usually) of insulation between
the inner and outer walls.

Those of us with empty gaps can have them filled at our own cost or,
nowadays for many people, free. Because of not being able to access the
gap solid slabs can't be inserted so loose filling is blown into the gap.

In our case (and I think it's the most usual) holes are drilled in the
mortar between bricks at certain distances from each other, a pipe is
inserted and shredded mineral fibre is blown into the gap from outside.
It's a quick, if noisy, business, a lorry stands in the street with a
large bore hose leading to the house, the pump is in the back of the lorry
and can be heard from several houses away - that's how we know when
someone's having it done :-)

Afterwards the holes are re-filled with mortar and the workmen leave. As I
said, it's very quick and if you haven't had any wall insulation before
you can feel the difference immediately - far sooner than you can with
roof insulation although the fuel savings aren't as obvious.

I'm talking about brick-built houses of course, houses built from other
materials will probably have different means of providing insulation if it
wasn't built in from the start. I say that to avoid being flamed :-)

Mary

The filling is usually subject to a survey. As if there is damp on the
outer brick wall, the insulation in the cavity may take it to the inside
wall. The two walls were to prevent water ingress anyhow (well to overcome
poor quality workmanship in a building boom in the 1920s really). I think
the builders were giving guarantees with new homes and the cavity wall meant
that damp problems would be near eliminated. Cavity walls are unnecessary
in the UK, except in coastal windblown areas, yet they are standard. Some
cavity fill material makers say their materials do not allow moisture to
travel from the outer wall to the inner walls. You can't part fill, as
water may move across the top of the insulation material.

The only good thing about cavity walls is that they can be filled with
insulation to improve the thermal qualities of the house. If a wall is
designed for maximum insulation, it beats cavity walls hands down. It is an
expensive undertaking building two walls when one will do. The Germans
think we are mad.

I know of one block of apartments that had the cavities filled. The
residents complained that they were colder in the Spring. The solar gain
from the south facing walls never penetrated into the apartments. Overall
throughout the year they would have saved money on fuel and in winter the
places would be warmer.

"Jim" wrote in message
. net...
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Jim wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

It's applicable to walls constructed of two skins of masonry (bricks or
blocks) with an air gap between them. When retrofitted, holes are drilled
in one skin (usually the outer) and fibrous or granular insulating
material
blown into the gap. In USAnia I think you generally have timber-frame and
other constructions where this wouldn't work.

Thank you; I have seen parallel brick walls with a space between, tied
together with an extra long brick every so often, in buildings hundreds of
years old. I don't know anyone in the US who lives in a home like that....

Now we tie the walls together with stainless steel wall ties or plastic wall
ties. The plastic do not extract so much heat from the inner walls.

For the average UK home the whole idea if building two walls is an expensive
luxury. Building two wall were one can do. A highly insulated single wall
is the best way.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is an expensive undertaking building two walls when one will do. The
Germans
think we are mad.

How do the Germans build their walls then ?

I have seen a 'single wall' construction used in the UK btw using building block
that had internal cavities. Obviously that's unsuitable as an external finish so
it has to be rendered and usually painted and not everyone likes that style of
finish.

Graham

"Jim" wrote in message
. net...

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:57:49 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I understand that he has done that as well.......

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

And he didn't inhale the wacky baccy at Oxford either, did he? :-)

If you are a decent sort of chap who does =not= smoke pot, what are you
doing =faking= it to impress people who do?! Makes no sense at all.... I
used to smoke pot; I faked =not= smoking it, but I never faked smoking it.
Clinton is a foole.

He is not as he knew more would believe him than never.

No response then? Guess it must be!

On 17 Oct, 09:47, Jonathan wrote:
On 16 Oct, 23:12, "Jim" wrote:

Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!

Would it be the same controversial, much hated neo-Nazi ultra-right
wing Jew-hating, gay-bashing racist Ann Coulter who's been disowned by
the GOP itself?
The one that says that "Jews need to be perfected by conversion to
Christianity"?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...id=21&threadid...

In that case, here are some more of her "marvelous" thoughts:
Highlights include her description of Al Gore ("total fag"), John
Edwards ("faggot"), Muslims ("ragheads," "camel jockeys," "jihad
monkeys"), her suggestion that said monkeys should stick to "flying
carpets" instead of travelling on commercial airlines, and her next-
day reaction to 9/11: "We should invade their countries, kill their
leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Is that the same Ann Coulter you're quoting? I can't actually find
that report either - got a link?
Just wondering....

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:04:49 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
For the average UK home the whole idea if building two walls is an
expensive luxury. Building two wall were one can do. A highly
insulated single wall is the best way.

A cavity wall lets you use durable and aesthetically pleasing facing
bricks economically and much cheaper (but no less fit for purpose)
blockwork for the inner skin. If you insulate the cavity you
increase the thermal mass (and thus comfort) within the house.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can assure yu if e.g. the USA developed a safe fusion generator the
size of a bicycle and gave the technology to the world, the Chines would
take it up faster than you can say 'chow mein'

I dare say they would but it's not going to happen is it. Science is a bitch like
that !

So how about some meaningful statements ?


well how about the USA giving a few billion to the WHO to buy the rights
to all anti AIDS drugs and put THAT in the public domain?

Not quite the same..but in the spirit of.

But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: just
tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You can use
the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.



Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Sundug wrote:

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the
test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure
Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for
lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

What's wrong with either of those ?

Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of CO2
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be available for
more than a few hours a day.

Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been quietly
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs for
decades. And inexpensively too btw.

The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the need to
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by half'
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.

Graham


Agreed on all counts.

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

However conversely a separator capable of achieving reactor grade
uranium is not NECESSARILY at all capable of refining down to weapons
grade URANIUM.

Which is why there are UN nuclear inspectorates..although these seem to
being killed off a shade rapidly.(Kelly)

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:04:49 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
For the average UK home the whole idea if building two walls is an
expensive luxury. Building two wall were one can do. A highly
insulated single wall is the best way.

A cavity wall lets you use durable and aesthetically pleasing facing
bricks economically and much cheaper (but no less fit for purpose)
blockwork for the inner skin. If you insulate the cavity you
increase the thermal mass (and thus comfort) within the house.

No you dont increae teh thermal ass. Th blockwork already does that,
insulated o not.

What you do though, is reduce the dependence of the interior on the
exterior temperatures, which gives a much less variable diurnal range of
internal temperatures.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:33:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

The ones used by magpies to build a nest in one of our trees were ss. I
was surprised because I'd only ever seen galvanised.

They were obviously up with the regs :-)

--
John Stumbles

I've got nothing against racists - I just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?


It was pure LUCK that N.O. hadn't been struck by a 'Katrina' before and their luck
finally ran out. If you live in an area that's prone to hurricanes you're taking
risks. The poor workmanship finished the job.

'event cascade'

It was a combination.

How many timber frame houses in the USA will be destroyed by tornadoes,
if tornado frequency and intensity goes up 30%..?

How many more square mile of land will be flooded if PEAK storm
rainfall goes up 30%?, on average..

and so on.

Graham

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:46:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The problem is that by then we will have turned the climate back into
what it was pre the carboniferous era..which was a climate suitable for
growing vast amount of primitive trees in a global swamp.

The other problem is that we then have a huge stock of energy-inefficient
housing, most of whose occupants (all except the richest) are, as things
fall apart, increasingly unable to afford the necessary improvements.

--
John Stumbles

What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can assure yu if e.g. the USA developed a safe fusion generator the
size of a bicycle and gave the technology to the world, the Chines would
take it up faster than you can say 'chow mein'

I dare say they would but it's not going to happen is it. Science is a bitch like
that !

So how about some meaningful statements ?

well how about the USA giving a few billion to the WHO to buy the rights
to all anti AIDS drugs and put THAT in the public domain?

Not quite the same..but in the spirit of.

But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: just
tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You can use
the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.

Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

No breeder is required. Enriched uranium fuel will produce plutonium in a simple thermal
reactor. Doesn't even need to be a power reactor.You just need to be careful with the burn
rate and extract the used fuel earlier rather than later, so the plutonium itself isn't
burnt up.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions
And how would that be ?

Any one of a million ways.

Lack of any meaningful answer or even any attempt to answer noted.


I didn't tell you how to count beyond ten without taking your socks off
either, prat.

How hve I reduced my energy usage?
Ive stoped driving a large expensive thirsty car everywhere.
I spend more time shopping online, and getting stuff delivered via cheap
cost efficient diesel vans than sitting in traffic queues to visit my
local shopping mall.
I have insulated my house as well as I can.
I run open fires that burn wood I cut from my land. Every little helps.
I work from home as much as possible.
I buy secondhand goods whose energy of manufacture has already been paid
for wherever possible.

Why? because its cost effective with rapidly rising energy prices.
As much as anything.

What could government do to make more people behave similarly?
Tax fuel, and tax NEW goods, And NOT tax income, savings, capital
assets, and secondhand goods.

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them. And with
labor costs maybe 40% cheaper, that would be a double whammy.

Government policy is geared to encourage a throwaway borrow-and-spend,
lifestyle.

Flip the taxation regime around and encourage a thrifty make-do-and-mend
society, and our resource consumption will plummet.




Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim wrote:

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.
Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.
The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g.
actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy
more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like
that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free..

We don;t need legislation, we need taxation.

If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in
the car to do it.

Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price.

As I have said elsewhere, whether you achieve this by a tax or a subsidy, overall in
the total scheme of things, it makes little difference. They're just names for
redirecting the flow of money. Some names may be more palatable than others.

I don't have a problem with that at all.

I DO have a problem with LEGISLATION. This makes it look like you are
doing something, when you are not, and has loads of unintended
consequences. Direct financial bias by the sensible application of
taxes and subsidies goes straight to the heart of the problem.

Don't ban 4x4's - Tax fuel
Don't force people to recycle. Tax *new* stuff.
Don't ban incandescent light bulbs. Tax electricity.

Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE.

Don't susbidise windmills either, just tax fossil fuel. If windmills are
cost effective, people will build em. If they are not, they won't.




Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
And the next cracking joke is this one !

As the demand for green 'carbon neutral' bio-fuel increases, palm oil production
in Asia is being increased. To do this they BURN OFF more of their rainforest !
Carbon-neutral my ass !

So, a green political whim in Europe results in wholesale rainforest
destruction. BRILLIANT !
Yup.

Governementst should refrain from working out how to save energy:

It had nothing to do with Government.

It's the 'green movement' with its promotion of bio-fuels that's resulted in high
demand from the public 'to appear green' that can't be met from indigenous supply
which is in turn destroying rainforests.

Oh, the irony !


Indeed: Tax fossil fuel. henlet hatever technologies are cost effective
come up.

If rainforests are Good Things, tax anything that happens as a result of
rainforest destruction, and pay subsidies to people managing rain forests.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If the tax on home fuel and gas and on industrial fuel was te same as
that on road fuel, no one would accept a house that was anything else
than insulated to the sort of standard you might see in central Canada.

Taking government spending in toto, that's no different to offering free home
insulation upgrades. The money simply gets there by a slightly different route.


It is, and it isn't.

Taxes are easy to apply because we have mechanisms in place to do just
that. If yu spal a big fuel tax on the ol companies, you hav few easily
monitrable targts.

Subsidies need to be applied for, and have a hugely wasteful extra
bureaucracy to administer them. I have seldom found any goverment
handouts that need to be applied for to be worth the trouble of
applying for them.

OTOH every time petrol goes up another 5p a liter, I am acutely aware of
how much it costs to fill the tank, and teh idea of a cheaper to run car
looms even higher in my list of things to be considered.


Taxes, subsidies, thay all amount to the same thing in the end.


Yes and no. We do NOT have a mechanism to distribute subsidies to every
man, women company and child, in place. We DO have a mechanism to tax
every man woman and child, and company, in place.

In particular by scrapping taxes on savings and wealth, and labour, and
putting it all on CONSUMPTION via the VAT system, we have a perfect
opportunity to move towards a highly employed society, that exhibits
extreme thriftiness.


Graham

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:33:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

The ones used by magpies to build a nest in one of our trees were ss. I
was surprised because I'd only ever seen galvanised.

They were obviously up with the regs :-)

Building regs perhaps - but they were awarded ASBOs because of their
attitude and behaviour towards other residents in the tree.

Seriously, I'd never have believed such a collection of metal could have
been concreted together by a couple of birds ... I have a picture somewhere.

Mary

Eeyore wrote:
| The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You
|| can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|
| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Good guess.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:14:31 -0500, Jim wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-15, Ed Sirett wrote:


More useful in this whole thread would IMHO be:

What is the maximum outlay for a solar assisted water heating at current
gas/oil prices.

It might _just_ be possible that a diy approach is just about possible if
you value your time as nothing and make some/all of the equipment
yourself.

Professionally installed we are off by a multiple at present.

Hear, hear.

Personally, I'm not sure I would trust someone else to do this sort of
thing to my home. I think very few people would. Most alt energy things I've
seen are insane, bordering on scams, and definitely waaaaay overpriced.



It's my suspicion that the true cost ( of the solar assisted DHW kit)
together with a normal (not green-scam) price for installation could be
plausible.

It probably only plausible for houses with (vented) stored water systems
and then only when replacing the DHW cylinder and houses with a suitable
place to install the collectors. My own home would probably work out quite
easy to do as I have a flat roof with easy access.

If the kit was just a couple of hundred quid (which is what it would be if
it were mass produced like radiator/pumps/time controls etc.) The may be
it would be worth me doing it. Of course that a long way from doing for
someone else.... 8-(

Alas when I replaced the DHW cylinder in 2003 is did not get one with two
heater holes let alone two coils.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Morris Dovey wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
| The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You
|| can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|
| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Good guess.

Don't be so sure.
First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel
make just as much profit.

However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets
stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to
stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that
gets someone elected.

And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money
doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic
fundamentalists pockets instead.

*seen the dollar valuation recently?

John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:46:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The problem is that by then we will have turned the climate back into
what it was pre the carboniferous era..which was a climate suitable for
growing vast amount of primitive trees in a global swamp.

The other problem is that we then have a huge stock of energy-inefficient
housing, most of whose occupants (all except the richest) are, as things
fall apart, increasingly unable to afford the necessary improvements.

What occupants?

Dead from malaria, like as not.

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

No breeder is required. Enriched uranium fuel will produce plutonium in a simple thermal
reactor. Doesn't even need to be a power reactor.You just need to be careful with the burn
rate and extract the used fuel earlier rather than later, so the plutonium itself isn't
burnt up.


I stand corrected.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.
The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.
I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

Graham

So basically the answer to gun crime is to fore everyone to walk around
in armour plate that can stand a .45 at 2 yards range?

I think you should promote this sort of logic. It might catch on.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| Eeyore wrote:
||| The Natural Philosopher wrote:
||
|||| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|||| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control.
|||| You can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|||
||| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?
||
|| Good guess.
|
| Don't be so sure.
| First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Actually, I _am_ sure (not certain, but very confident it's so). I
think that Americans are willing to spend on solutions. Most are even
willing to spend perspiration on solutions. At the same time, fewer
and fewer Americans are willing to trust that anything promoted by
government is likely to be a 'solution' to any problem.

| Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive
| fuel make just as much profit.

I don't think profit is as much a problem for most Americans as is the
perception of unfair/unjust business practice. No one likes to feel
that they've been taken unfair advantage of and Americans are no
different from anyone else in this regard.

| However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets
| stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the
| way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well
| be the that gets someone elected.

I don't think it'll play that way. I think that most towns would be
more devastated by $10/gal gas than by occasional storm damage. In
this area even tornados don't normally destroy entire communities the
way that kind of fuel cost would.

| And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the
| money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic
| fundamentalists pockets instead.

Actually, Exxon /et al/ haven't done badly either. The fact of the
matter is that a lot of money is going to end up in the pockets of
whoever owns/produces the fuel, regardless of their particular belief
system.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 2007-10-17 09:33:18 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

I have no problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable
performance
shouldn't be made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to
help..

Of limited value. On older properties with 230mm solid walls,

A minority of properties.

There is still a very substantial stock in this category.




a very large proportion of total heat produced goes out through the walls.
There is very little that can reasonably be done about that.

It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or
not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too.

Graham

The improvement is not substantial until one starts putting in a
reasonable thickness of insulation. This can be ameliorated to some
extent with materials such as Kingspan, but still involve issues such
as reduction in room size, how to handle window and door reveals
without making a pig's ear and redecorating etc. This is not trivial
for most people.